It takes time getting used to things, especially when you change medium. As far as I see, users adapt to the controls way faster than manufacturers adapt to users' requests.
People got used to using muskets. I can't zoom into an image when it is reviewed immediately after being shot, on any of my Canon bodies. How on earth can it be good to require the photographer to press a play button and then a zoom button whenever he wants to check focus? Nikons allow you to zoom your review.
In review I can see a histogram OR a full screen image. Or.
My 1Ds3 joystick can not be set to move the focus point.
On my 1Ds3 I must look at a screen on the back of the camera to check/alter the colour balance setting, but I must look at the top plate to check/alter ISO.
These are very very basic usability design errors in a £5000 camera. I have been using Canon for 2.5 years now. This has nothing whatsoever to do with different habits. This is product design not just by committee, but by a committee whose members appear to be in solitary confinement.
I really hate to swirl the rumor mill, but there have been a few rumors from respectable posters lately that the Sony FF is coming very soon, and that it is going to be priced aggressively. Then this rumor popped up today: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1037&message=28080841
So, the question is: How cheap does this camera need to be in order for you to take the plunge??
douglasf13 wrote:
I really hate to swirl the rumor mill, but there have been a few rumors from respectable posters lately that the Sony FF is coming very soon, and that it is going to be priced aggressively. Then this rumor popped up today: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1037&message=28080841
So, the question is: How cheap does this camera need to be in order for you to take the plunge??
This is the post:
So I just talked to a Sony Rep that comes into my store ( I work for Best Buy) and I was asking him about the a900. He told me that the company had sent out preliminary pricing on the a900 about a month ago to the reps. He said its not nailed down yet but that they are aiming at the sub-$2000 market. Which would put it at less than half the price of the least expensive full frame camera available now (canon 5d @ $3000). Im not sure what to make of this or if I should believe this.....
Is it just me or is this complete rubbish?
I just checked the B&H website and the Canon 5D is selling for $1900. If the Sony sells for under $2K, that puts it at the same price as the 5D, not less than half the price.
If Sony wants to shakes things up they need to sell the body at $1500, imo.
Conner999 wrote:
Lleon wrote: But what beats me is what is so hard for Canon to implement a dedicated button to do Mirror-Lock-Up and save the world *stares at the Direct Print button and sighs*
Answer: Canon Printer 'Division' (holding too much political power within the corp.) with the idiotic assumption people will actually use the thing and in some bizarre way, boost printer sales. Some VP needs a corporate smack-down.
I completely agree with this, but learned a bit about Canon's position on this from a Canon rep...
Apparently this feature (direct print button) is targeted toward the Japan/Asia market, where it is very common for amateur photographers (who buy high end camera equipment) to not own a full-featured desktop computer. Apparently, they often own just an internet browsing portal type of device (instead of a full computer), and want to be able to connect their camera directly to the printer.
Sometimes we forget how important the requirements of the Japanese market are to Canon.
foto-z, I agree that this rumor may or not be just that. There are lots of indicators about the price being lower than previously expected according to a few Sony reps, but we'll have to wait and see.
However, this camera has no reason to compete with an aging Canon 5D. It is competing with the upcoming 5D replacement (which Sony has stated many, many times,) but it'll have 1Ds III level resolution. I have no idea what kind of DSLR system you're married to, but if it would take a $1500 price tag in order for you to buy a 24MP, fullframe camera that takes Zeiss AF lenses, then you must be very, very happy with that system. I'll more than likely buy this camera if it's under $4000, let alone $2000.
p.s. fwiw, the employee based his 5D price off of the price of that camera where he works.
douglasf13 wrote:
However, this camera has no reason to compete with an aging Canon 5D. It is competing with the upcoming 5D replacement (which Sony has stated many, many times,)
Agreed, but Sony can't just match the price of the 5D MkII. There are too many Canon lens owners who would stick with Canon, all else being equal. The Sony might have the edge in resolution (24 v 16?) but I expect the Canon will have the edge in noise at high ISO. We'll see. So my point is that Sony needs to beat the new 5D by $500-1000 to encourage people to make a swap.
douglasf13 wrote:
I have no idea what kind of DSLR system you're married to, but if it would take a $1500 price tag in order for you to buy a 24MP, fullframe camera that takes Zeiss AF lenses, then you must be very, very happy with that system.
Hehe, actually I have no DSLR. I'm using a medium format digital camera. The next full-frame Sony or Canon would interest me as a backup camera, a camera to take into hazardous situations where I would fear to take my expensive camera, and a camera which covers the weaknesses of my existing camera (low-noise at ISO 3200 would be appealing, as would fast AF). So yes, our priorities and needs may well be different.
The aperture is as slow as the competition, but apparently it's very well built. Sony is doing many things right now. What they lack is a very high quality WA zoom and some long telephoto lenses, but apart from that, and if the A900 is good value for money, this looks very tempting.
foto-z, I was thinking that you shot medium format You're probably right about the Sony needing to beat the 5DII in price, and I'd imagine the 5DII to be around $3K US, but we'll see.
I used an older leaf back with my Hasselblads up until a few months ago, and, since my finances can't handle a hit from a new back, I'm looking at Sony as the way to go for myself. I've already got the Zeiss 24-70 and 85mm (and an A700 in the interim,) and I've been impressed, so far. I was expecting a $3500+ hit from the 24MP Sony, so I'm licking my chops at the idea of getting a couple of them for that price. Probably wishful thinking. lol.
Edited by douglasf13 on May 28, 2008 at 05:00 AM GMT
Sony is making a good job of keeping the lid on this one (and us all guessing). The speculation posted above seems spurious to me.
I'm sure the 'Flagship' camera (Alpha 1 is another plausible recent suggestion for the name) will be priced keenly: consider the similarities in spec between the A700 and the D300, yet the difference in price. In typical Sony fashion, the accessories (lenses) are massively overpriced to compensate for the competitive entry cost. And they must be conscious of the need to woo die-hard Canon and Nikon users.
But a sub-$2K price tag would be terrible: heaven knows what corners they'd have to cut to hit that target . . . what we need is a fully featured, properly priced (ie $3-4K) pro-level machine that does justice to these great new lenses. It needs smarter (not faster) AF than the A700, and more sophisticated noise reduction, and we really need something like a 14-24mm or 16-35mm, and a lens in the 25/1.8 ballpark before pros en-bloc can think seriously about a system switch.
I don't know if it has been discussed, but I was interested to see that the α900 doesn't have real liveview. Instead it has a secondary sensor above the viewfinder eyepiece, and the light path is diverted by the swing of a mirror in the pentaprism. That has a whole range of implications:
1) the pentaprism may be made with mirrors. such designs are reputed to be dimmer, but are much much lighter. perhaps new technology can make it bright enough to save cost and weight.
2) liveview will be captured with a noisier or lower resolution sensor than the image itself. sony will probably use one of its excellent video sensors. As a result, it may have quite low latency.
3) camera calibration will be crucial as one of the main uses of liveview has turned out to be precision focussing. if there is any kind of path length variation with temperature or shock, or even factory calibration, then this will hurt precision liveview focussing. Precision focussing is very difficult with a 24 megapixel camera, and there is little point in having 24 megapixels instead of 12 if you can't actually realise their sharpness in the part of the picture where it is required.
4) the liveview capture sensor will almost certainly be much lower resolution than the 24 megapixel full-frame sensor, and will set a limit on how accurately you can focus with liveview.
5) real SLR mirror-type autofocus will be available in liveview without any blackout at all.
6) using liveview at high iso's for extended periods will not compromise image noise at all.
It's a very interesting design, with tremendous advantages and possibly some quite serious limitations. For me, the prospect of a short-bodied 24megapixel camera without a glass prism is very alluring as it should be terrifically light.
Brainiac, you are quite right. I was thinking the same thing. It kind of defeats the purpose of liveview if you are not using the actual sensor. Let's hope the calibration is 100% on these.
I too can't see the point if it's not a readout from the actual sensor. With MP's and consequently resolution shooting up it exposes the limitations of AF systems for critical work as they have to make a compromise between speed and accuracy. This system looks like the one found on most video cameras where a small electronic VF is used in place of an optical one.
hubsand wrote:
But a sub-$2K price tag would be terrible: heaven knows what corners they'd have to cut to hit that target . . .
Why do you say that? The unit production cost of electronics can be only a small fraction of the RRP. I'm guessing that a camera like this costs around $6-800 to produce (unit cost), so if Sony sell it with a modest markup, I think there is still room for distributor and retail margins to take it up to $2K. So what if they don't make a fat profit for a few years. Buying market share is much more important long term.
Example: Apple iPhone costs around $1500 in Germany without a contract. Production cost is around $200.
If they do release it for 5D prices then I will very definatly buy one. I don't need more than 12 megapixels for my wedding work but I do for urban landscapes. I have money squirrelled away which could be used for a 5D mkII but I doubt I'll spend it...
Is that actually an α900? Or is it a 700, or something else?
That's the A300/350. It works like you describe, and the viewfinder is terribly dim.
Interestingly, the A700, which does not have live view, seems to be discontinued already (it's disappearing from several shops). That makes me suspect that they will release an improved version with LV and better noise reduction together with the (presumed) A900, or simply a budget FF camera instead.
brainiac wrote:
Is that actually an α900? Or is it a 700, or something else?
Jorgen Udvang wrote:
That's the A300/350.
Thanks Jorgen - I realised it didn't look right after my initial comment. I don't know what that image is doing in an article about the α900. The α900 pentaprism looks chunkier, from the outside, so it is probably glass. It still doesn't look as serious as those on the D3 and Canon mk3's. I wonder if it's going to be bright enough for reliable manual focus at 24 megapixel.
I really hope that the rear buttons don't do anything important, cause I know if I were using that camera, i'd be pressing half of them anytime I picked the camera up, and the other half of them when running around working.
brainiac wrote:
People got used to using muskets. I can't zoom into an image when it is reviewed immediately after being shot, on any of my Canon bodies. How on earth can it be good to require the photographer to press a play button and then a zoom button whenever he wants to check focus? Nikons allow you to zoom your review.
In review I can see a histogram OR a full screen image. Or.
My 1Ds3 joystick can not be set to move the focus point.
On my 1Ds3 I must look at a screen on the back of the camera to check/alter the colour balance setting, but I must look at the top plate to check/alter ISO.
These are very very basic usability design errors in a £5000 camera. I have been using Canon for 2.5 years now. This has nothing whatsoever to do with different habits. This is product design not just by committee, but by a committee whose members appear to be in solitary confinement.
Just saw this and I still don't get it, ! But I'm not using a 1Ds3. The play zoom issue is how all of my DSLRs from both makers have worked so it's second nature too me.
The WB/ISO issue also does not apply to my EOS bodies.
Not sure what you are addressing in the histogram/ review part. Do you want full size review with the histogram overtop??
My "joystick" does move my focus points on both of my EOS bodies. Sounds like they've dummy'd down the 1Ds3
.
You're probably right about the Sony needing to beat the 5DII in price, and I'd imagine the 5DII to be around $3K US, but we'll see. 
! But I'm not using a 1Ds3. The play zoom issue is how all of my DSLRs from both makers have worked so it's second nature too me.